An v Bupa Care Services (New Zealand) Limited

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 80 OF THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT 1988, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 24/2017
[2017] NZSC 52

BETWEEN	AN (SC 24/2017) Applicant
AND	BUPA CARE SERVICES (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P W Le Cren and C E J Deans for Respondent
Judgment:	1 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of the judgment of this Court delivered on 12 April this year[1] dismissing her application for leave to appeal against a judgment of Downs J rejecting an application for a writ of habeas corpus.[2]
[1]AN (SC 24/2017) v Bupa Care Services (New Zealand) Ltd [2017] NZSC 49.
[2]N v Bupa Care Services (New Zealand) Ltd [2017] NZHC 499.
The applicant’s submissions in support of the application take issue with the conclusions expressed in the judgment dismissing the application for leave to appeal. It is inappropriate to engage with such arguments in the absence of anything to suggest a basis for recall beyond the applicant’s disagreement with the result.
Nothing raised by the applicant meets the threshold for a direct appeal from the High Court to this Court. Nor, for the reasons given in the earlier judgment, are the criteria for leave in s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 met. The application for recall of the earlier judgment is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Claro, Christchurch for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for recall by An against Bupa Care Services (New Zealand) Limited. The applicant sought to appeal against a previous decision of Downs J, who had dismissed her application for a writ of habeas corpus. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, and she now seeks to recall that decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application for recall met the necessary threshold for reconsideration. The applicant argued against the conclusions of the earlier judgment, but the court found no basis for a direct appeal or for leave under section 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The court considered the applicant's disagreement with the outcome insufficient grounds for recall. The applicant did not present any new information or arguments that would warrant a change in the original decision.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall, reaffirming that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome did not constitute grounds for reconsideration. The court reiterated that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a basis for appeal beyond disagreement with the result, and the criteria for leave were not met. Consequently, the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal remained upheld.

The final order of the court was that the application for recall be dismissed, with no further orders made in respect of the substantive matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established